PLUNKET METHODS

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 13891, 25 June 1938, Page 5

PLUNKET METHODS

INVESTIGATION WELCOMED INQUIRY BY MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. Electric Telegraph—Press Association DUNEDIN, June 24. In an interviw least night the Minister of Health, the Hon. P. Fraser, intimated that he had received a resolution from the New Zealand Council of the British Medical Association asking lor an investigation, into infant nutrition under the direction of the Medical Research Council. The letter stated that before the resolution was communicated to the Minister, a statement on it which did not come from the association appeared in the Press. This gave the impression that the resolution was based on adverse criticism of the Plunket Society’s work. This was not so and nothing in the resolution was intended or could be inferred as an attack on ]tbo society The Minister said that he was favourable towards a request for an investigation. It should be carried out under the direction of the Medical Research Council. The council had appointed a committee, of which professor Malcolm was convener, to investigate the nutrition problem in New' Zealand, and the subject of infant nutrition obviously was part and parcel of the general problem. “The wonderfully beneficial work of the Plunket Society.” the Minister continude, “has received world-wide recognition, and it would be regretjtahle if anything should be done or said that would detract from its value or unjustifiably lessen confidence in the work or excellent methods of the society At the same time 1 have been Informed by the president of the society, Mrs. Begg, that the officers and executive of the council would welcome any investigation by the committee, the personnel of which would be thoroughly competent and imbued with the true scientific spirit.” STATEMENT BY EXECUTIVE WELLINGTON, June 24. “The Plunket Society welcomes the fullest inquiry into its work,” stated the executive committee of the society, in ail official statement issued yesterday. “The society has been aware for some months of the criticism directed by Dr. Spencer against one aspect of its work. This criticism was conveyed to the executive in a letter from Dr. j Spencer, who was immediately notified that, as it was a technical matter It would be dealt with in the only possible way—by reference to a medical * Committee. “Dr. Spencer was not satisfied with this and proceeded to attack the society publicly through th,e Press. He further knew at the time of publishing the attack that a meeting of the medical advisory committee of the society had been convened to deal with the matter and that three of the Specialists referred to by him had been co-opted in an advisory capacity. “His article gives the impression ■that the society is avoiding expert Opinion. This he knows is not the case. The society welcomes the fullest inquiry into its work and will be prepared at any time to make available its records of cases oyer a number of years. The executive regrets that Dr. Spencer has consistently refused to supply the different particulars of specific eases cited by him to enable the society to investigate the charges he has made. Pending the receipt of the report of the committee referred to above, no further statement can be made.”